Full Version: Revoke the Oscar, Bowling for Columbine
Information:
Bowling for Columbine violated the Academy's own rules. These limit the documentary competition to nonfiction films. Bowling isn't nonfiction. Whenever it was necessary to his theme, Moore invented facts, fabricated events, staged scenes, or doctored the depiction of what actually happened. When Heston, for example, gave a mild and concilliatory speech, Moore simply edited the footage (and inserted footage from a different speech a year later) to make it sound arrogant.
If you aren't already familiar with what he did, check:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/index.html
In the case of Milli Vanilli, one of their albums had won them the Grammy for best new artists. It was then discovered that the group was actually a composite. The real singing was done by people with voices but no good looks, while two other fellows, who had looks but couldn't sing, appeared on camera to mouth the words -- to lip-synch. The Grammy was an award for singing, and since the supposed group (the two fellows on camera) was not singing, they weren't qualified. The Recording Academy revoked their Grammy.
A similar event occurred last year in the field of scholarship. Emory history professor Michael Bellesiles had been awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book "Arming America." Critics, however, began investigating his data and found that a number of his claims did not check out: when examined, the sources cited in the footnotes either said nothing about, or sometimes directly contradicted, his text. After a panel of distinguished historians ruled that the book indeed contained academic fraud, Columbia University revoked his Bancroft, and Bellesiles resigned his post at Emory.
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/index.html
What do you think?
Should Michael Moore's "documentary" be investigated to see if
1) the Heston Denver speech was edited,
2) the spokesman for the missile plant informed Moore that the plant made only civilian missiles instead of military missiles as depicted in the film,
3) the bank where he obtained a gun by joining an account departed from normal procedures?
Should the oscar be revoked?
Bowling for Columbine violated the Academy's own rules. These limit the documentary competition to nonfiction films. Bowling isn't nonfiction. Whenever it was necessary to his theme, Moore invented facts, fabricated events, staged scenes, or doctored the depiction of what actually happened. When Heston, for example, gave a mild and concilliatory speech, Moore simply edited the footage (and inserted footage from a different speech a year later) to make it sound arrogant.
If you aren't already familiar with what he did, check:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/index.html
In the case of Milli Vanilli, one of their albums had won them the Grammy for best new artists. It was then discovered that the group was actually a composite. The real singing was done by people with voices but no good looks, while two other fellows, who had looks but couldn't sing, appeared on camera to mouth the words -- to lip-synch. The Grammy was an award for singing, and since the supposed group (the two fellows on camera) was not singing, they weren't qualified. The Recording Academy revoked their Grammy.
A similar event occurred last year in the field of scholarship. Emory history professor Michael Bellesiles had been awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book "Arming America." Critics, however, began investigating his data and found that a number of his claims did not check out: when examined, the sources cited in the footnotes either said nothing about, or sometimes directly contradicted, his text. After a panel of distinguished historians ruled that the book indeed contained academic fraud, Columbia University revoked his Bancroft, and Bellesiles resigned his post at Emory.
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/index.html
What do you think?
Should Michael Moore's "documentary" be investigated to see if
1) the Heston Denver speech was edited,
2) the spokesman for the missile plant informed Moore that the plant made only civilian missiles instead of military missiles as depicted in the film,
3) the bank where he obtained a gun by joining an account departed from normal procedures?
Should the oscar be revoked?
Should we hold the Oscars to a higher standard of truth than the presidency? Answer that, and you've answered your own question.
This movement is such a lot of bunk! It really is. It's a bunch of silly people upset by Moore's speech at the Oscars, a speech he was within his rights to make. So they come up with some other tactic to discredit the film. Are there factual errors in the film? Sure. There is no documentary that isn't putting some level of spin on the subject matter. To compare it with Milli Vanilli is apples and oranges.
Documentaries are not news. They are a film maker's interpretation or vision of actual events and ideas. I mean, have you ever seen that laughable NRA piece where they twist all these stories from around the world to achieve their spin? That's even worse than "Bowling."
Isn't there anything more worthwhile for these folks to focus on? If they want to get involved, there's always help needed at the local soup kitchens. Jeez.
Documentaries are not news. They are a film maker's interpretation or vision of actual events and ideas. I mean, have you ever seen that laughable NRA piece where they twist all these stories from around the world to achieve their spin? That's even worse than "Bowling."
Isn't there anything more worthwhile for these folks to focus on? If they want to get involved, there's always help needed at the local soup kitchens. Jeez.
QUOTE(beladonna @ Apr 28 2003, 07:20 AM)
2) the spokesman for the missile plant informed Moore that the plant made only civilian missiles instead of military missiles as depicted in the film,
Civilian missiles? I got to get me one of those.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Apr 28 2003, 05:45 AM)
Should we hold the Oscars to a higher standard of truth than the presidency? Answer that, and you've answered your own question.
You silly duck-beaked critter!
The Bancroft Prize is a good analogy to the Oscars, the Presidency isn't. The rules for a President are very simple, they're in the Constitution, which says nothing at all about not lying or not making facts up. Such things are left to the judgement of We, the People, or in extreme cases to the Senate via impeachment. If you want to claim this President doesn't deserve reelection, fine, the next election is coming up soon and you're welcome to argue that.
The Bancroft Prize and the Academy Awards apparently do have specific rules against lying and against making up facts out of whole cloth. If the Academy feels Moore violated their standards, they're well within their rights to investigate that, and if they feel there's a sufficiently serious violation, to revoke Moore's Oscar.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Apr 28 2003, 02:53 PM)
The rules for a President are very simple, they're in the Constitution
Ah, but I didn't say anything about the Holy Constitution. A question about "should we..." can be answered outside that very limiting context.
Maybe you didn't, but we're talking about rules of governing bodies that give out awards. So who gives our Presidents awards and what are the rules, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? 
Who cares about Oscars?
Michael Moore is a brilliant satirist. He doesn't do documentaries. He does comedy.
I yawn, oh gee, another Oscar-winning flick. Some are good, some are not.
Haven't seen this particular flick, but the trailer where Moore is aiming his gun that a bank just gave him for opening an account--within the bank, and pondering the irony of this situation--priceless!
Moore is laughing at us. Many people laugh with him. Many find him disgusting.
Just like Rush Limbaugh. Eh, it's entertainment.
Michael Moore is a brilliant satirist. He doesn't do documentaries. He does comedy.
I yawn, oh gee, another Oscar-winning flick. Some are good, some are not.
Haven't seen this particular flick, but the trailer where Moore is aiming his gun that a bank just gave him for opening an account--within the bank, and pondering the irony of this situation--priceless!
Moore is laughing at us. Many people laugh with him. Many find him disgusting.
Just like Rush Limbaugh. Eh, it's entertainment.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Apr 28 2003, 11:35 PM)
So who gives our Presidents awards and what are the rules, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Exactly. There are rules, which mandate election and not judicial appointment, but we probably have at least one thread already about the 2000 election. Let's try to keep this one on topic.
For anybody who didn't view the "revoketheoscar" site provided, here is its foundation for the "lies" told by Moore in the film:
I saw the film, and none of these were presented as facts but, rather, as opinions. The film itself addressed certain facts -- the number of shootings in various countries, the business of military defense contractors, the history of American propaganda and warfare, the actions of the Columbine shooters, media reactions to such events -- and then proposed opinions to explain each of them. Might the problems of America presented by Moore be because of poor gun laws? Might the defense industry somehow contribute? Moore hints that they might, but they are presented only as opinions, something for the viewer to think about.
Think of the documentaries made about many alleged historic events: the life and death of Jesus, various battles of the Roman empire, the life and death of Napoleon, the role of the Catholic church during the holocaust. To my knowledge, there are no Oscar-winning documentaries of these events, but they are documentaries none the less. Like Bowling they address certain facts and present them as such. But in order to then craft the story (as they see it) they must speculate and present opinions as well. Certainly there are documentaries proclaiming the innocence of the church in the holocaust while there are others condemning their inaction. Likewise, there are different documentaries with different accounts of how Napoleon died or how particular battles occurred during the conquests under the Roman empire.
Moving on to Dave Kopel's bit from National Review Online, also cited from the onset of this thread... this piece does almost exactly what it is accusing Moore of in Bowling for Columbine. Where Moore took facts, presented them, and then presented his view of the facts, Mr. Kopel does precisely the same thing as Moore. He presumes that each clip shown in the film is intended to do exactly what he (Mr. Kopel) perceives. An excerpt:
Beyond that, Kopel takes issue with facts not included in the film by Moore. He takes issue with a cartoon depiction of American history. Not every fact is going to be presented in a documentary, there just isn't enough time. Each documentary is going to present the facts as they see them, with a certain degree of bias inherent. Mr. Kopel and others don't agree with the particular view presented here, decrying it as anti-American propaganda. Perhaps they would have preferred the anti-foreign propaganda shown earlier in the 20th century depicting foreign enemies as being nothing more than savages, barely human.
Welcome to the world of spin! 'Cause that's the only legit complaint these people have, is what particular spin Moore put on facts. The perspective may be biased and, in fact, is expected to be. Nobody has to agree with it. Nobody even has to agree with the Oscar committee. I thought Russell Crowe deserved a second Oscar for his role in A Beautiful Mind over Denzel Washington (Training Day), but I'm not on the committee. Those are the brakes.
Bowling for Columbine met the standards of the Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. That isn't to say the Acadamy's standards meet those of every op-ed columnist in the country, or every viewer who paid to see the film. For anybody not familiar with the rules surrounding the Oscar for best Documentary:
While I can see where those arguing against the film are coming from, the film met the standards of the Academy. The emphasis remains on fact rather than fiction, dealing with factual people and events. The explanation behind them is opinion presented by Moore. It is this opinion that critics would seemingly like to dub fiction, and thus label the entire film as fiction not deserving of an Oscar.
If people don't like it, they can watch a documentary blaming video games and movies. They can blame 9/11 solely on hatred of our wealth and freedom, even though they don't target other wealthy and free nations near as often. In short, they can watch another documentary that spins the facts to their liking. I don't agree with all the connections Moore (from the so-called left) tried to make and I don't agree with all the assertions Bill O'Reilly (from the so-called right) tries to make. Spin is a part of our lives now. They have the right to present it as they see it and we have the right to scrutinize it and come to our own conclusions.
QUOTE
- America was founded on violence and fear, as quarrelsome pilgrims fled to the new world, where their paranoia led them to massacre the Indians, then the British, and then each other;
- The Columbine murderers' violence might have its roots in the fact that one had a father in our military (American soldiers are presumably murderers, and it must rub off on their kids) or that there was a defense contractor in the area;
- Charlton Heston (one of Hollywood's few upstanding men) is a callous fool;
- The terrorist attack on 9/11 is related to past American foreign policy -- in short, America's own fault;
I saw the film, and none of these were presented as facts but, rather, as opinions. The film itself addressed certain facts -- the number of shootings in various countries, the business of military defense contractors, the history of American propaganda and warfare, the actions of the Columbine shooters, media reactions to such events -- and then proposed opinions to explain each of them. Might the problems of America presented by Moore be because of poor gun laws? Might the defense industry somehow contribute? Moore hints that they might, but they are presented only as opinions, something for the viewer to think about.
Think of the documentaries made about many alleged historic events: the life and death of Jesus, various battles of the Roman empire, the life and death of Napoleon, the role of the Catholic church during the holocaust. To my knowledge, there are no Oscar-winning documentaries of these events, but they are documentaries none the less. Like Bowling they address certain facts and present them as such. But in order to then craft the story (as they see it) they must speculate and present opinions as well. Certainly there are documentaries proclaiming the innocence of the church in the holocaust while there are others condemning their inaction. Likewise, there are different documentaries with different accounts of how Napoleon died or how particular battles occurred during the conquests under the Roman empire.
Moving on to Dave Kopel's bit from National Review Online, also cited from the onset of this thread... this piece does almost exactly what it is accusing Moore of in Bowling for Columbine. Where Moore took facts, presented them, and then presented his view of the facts, Mr. Kopel does precisely the same thing as Moore. He presumes that each clip shown in the film is intended to do exactly what he (Mr. Kopel) perceives. An excerpt:
QUOTE
Aerospace contractor Lockheed Martin has a factory in Littleton, so Moore asks a company spokesman if "our kids say to themselves, 'Well, gee, Dad goes off to the factory every day, and he builds missiles, he builds weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'" The camera then takes a shot of a workplace safety slogan — "It has to be foreign-object free" — to imply that Lockheed Martin employees revel in the killing of dehumanized foreigners.
...After blaming Lockheed for 13 deaths at Columbine, the film moves on to blaming the United States government for 3,000 deaths on September 11. It does this by arguing that we got what we deserved, because our nation revels in the killing of civilians by air.
...After blaming Lockheed for 13 deaths at Columbine, the film moves on to blaming the United States government for 3,000 deaths on September 11. It does this by arguing that we got what we deserved, because our nation revels in the killing of civilians by air.
Beyond that, Kopel takes issue with facts not included in the film by Moore. He takes issue with a cartoon depiction of American history. Not every fact is going to be presented in a documentary, there just isn't enough time. Each documentary is going to present the facts as they see them, with a certain degree of bias inherent. Mr. Kopel and others don't agree with the particular view presented here, decrying it as anti-American propaganda. Perhaps they would have preferred the anti-foreign propaganda shown earlier in the 20th century depicting foreign enemies as being nothing more than savages, barely human.
Welcome to the world of spin! 'Cause that's the only legit complaint these people have, is what particular spin Moore put on facts. The perspective may be biased and, in fact, is expected to be. Nobody has to agree with it. Nobody even has to agree with the Oscar committee. I thought Russell Crowe deserved a second Oscar for his role in A Beautiful Mind over Denzel Washington (Training Day), but I'm not on the committee. Those are the brakes.
Bowling for Columbine met the standards of the Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. That isn't to say the Acadamy's standards meet those of every op-ed columnist in the country, or every viewer who paid to see the film. For anybody not familiar with the rules surrounding the Oscar for best Documentary:
QUOTE
Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. Definition
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. Definition
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
While I can see where those arguing against the film are coming from, the film met the standards of the Academy. The emphasis remains on fact rather than fiction, dealing with factual people and events. The explanation behind them is opinion presented by Moore. It is this opinion that critics would seemingly like to dub fiction, and thus label the entire film as fiction not deserving of an Oscar.
If people don't like it, they can watch a documentary blaming video games and movies. They can blame 9/11 solely on hatred of our wealth and freedom, even though they don't target other wealthy and free nations near as often. In short, they can watch another documentary that spins the facts to their liking. I don't agree with all the connections Moore (from the so-called left) tried to make and I don't agree with all the assertions Bill O'Reilly (from the so-called right) tries to make. Spin is a part of our lives now. They have the right to present it as they see it and we have the right to scrutinize it and come to our own conclusions.
I have to agree with quarkhead: Do these people have nothing better to do with their lives? It's a frivolous, vindictive campaign conducted by bitter opponents of Moore who dislike his politics and resent the fact that, by producing an award-winning film, he was given a platform to voice his dissent. The Academy rules have nothing to do with it. It's a pointless waste of time, mounted by those who hate the fact that someone deigned to use a public forum for criticizing their king.
Your suggestion that the anti-Moore campaigners work in a soup kitchen instead, quarkie, is also a bit frivilous, though - it implies a level of compassion which is totally alien to these types.
Your suggestion that the anti-Moore campaigners work in a soup kitchen instead, quarkie, is also a bit frivilous, though - it implies a level of compassion which is totally alien to these types.
My biggest problem with the Internet is that it transports stupid ideas far faster than good old fashioned word of mouth. Any moron with a little HTML knowledge and a grudge can set up a website and find other like-minded morons to join in with his or her cause.
Bowling For Columbine wasn't just the best documentary of 2002, it was the [/U]best film of 2002[U] as well. It wasn't fair. It wasn't balanced. It didn't pass itself off as anything more than one man's opinion. Michael Moore just manages to get his opinions on film and there are a lot of right-wing nitwits who can't stand it.
Sucks for them. It's a great movie and nobody can take away the Academy Award that it so richly deserved.
Deal with it and get over it. 
Bowling For Columbine wasn't just the best documentary of 2002, it was the [/U]best film of 2002[U] as well. It wasn't fair. It wasn't balanced. It didn't pass itself off as anything more than one man's opinion. Michael Moore just manages to get his opinions on film and there are a lot of right-wing nitwits who can't stand it.
Sucks for them. It's a great movie and nobody can take away the Academy Award that it so richly deserved.
Deal with it and get over it.
I've been advised that this is not the proper way to address a post, so please disregard.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Apr 29 2003, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Apr 28 2003, 11:35 PM)
So who gives our Presidents awards and what are the rules, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Exactly. There are rules, which mandate election and not judicial appointment, but we probably have at least one thread already about the 2000 election. Let's try to keep this one on topic.
That's bogus, Platypus. You started the off-topic digression by trying to compare the Academy Awards to the Presidency, which are in no way comparable, and now you're implying I'm off-topic? This is one of those trashy debating tactics we were discussing in the Comments and Suggestions section.
But anyway, I'll concur that Moore is entitled to make lefty propaganda flicks, and maybe he even does it well enough to deserve an award for it. He won in the wrong category, that's all. It should have been for comedy, not a documentary, since what he does is broadly comparable to what The Onion does.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Apr 30 2003, 10:04 PM)
You started the off-topic digression by trying to compare the Academy Awards to the Presidency
But it's not off-topic at all. The question was, and I quote:
QUOTE
Should the oscar be revoked?
Now, questions about "should" - should we do this, should we do that - are meaningless without considering time and resources and priorities. I was making a point, and others have made the same one, that obsessing over Oscars is ridiculous in a larger context. Other contests matter more. Don't like my example? Sorry. I could have used the example of the "tuck rule" decision that led to New England winning a Super Bowl, but I didn't think that would have the same rhetorical punch. Giving an example of a contest that's more important than the Oscars is quite relevant; delving into the whys and wherefores of how that contest was decided is not.
To answer the original question: no, the Oscar should not be revoked. Even AMPAS has more important things than that to worry about.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Apr 30 2003, 07:04 PM)
But anyway, I'll concur that Moore is entitled to make lefty propaganda flicks, and maybe he even does it well enough to deserve an award for it. He won in the wrong category, that's all. It should have been for comedy, not a documentary, since what he does is broadly comparable to what The Onion does.
Izdaari, come on now. The Onion makes up facts wholesale. I'm sure you know that, and I can see as well what you are implying about Moore. While it's hard to footnote a movie, Moore has a fairly solid history of well-documented work, both in his books and in his movies. He obviously puts a spin on it, but that's what we're all doing right here. It's impossible to find a political documentary with no spin. Spin is inherent even in the most basic documentary film making, because the combination of the camera crew intruding into the observer/observed field and the editing room will always result in a fractured picture of whatever reality was being depicted.
There is no rule that says Moore must give an unbiased view of the facts he chooses.
Izdaari,
We agree! Wow. Thing is, I put Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy into this category too, because I think both those guys are trying to be entertainers. They just aren't as good as Moore due to the right wing not having the sense of irony and over-the-top schtick the left wing has. In other words, they take themselves too seriously.
They really think they have Truth!
Now, to me, that is hilarious! But, we do agree on Moore. I think he is best of breed. Can't wait until it's out on video.
Just as perspective, a few Amazon searches brought up this:
Stupid White Men, number 34 in sales. It shot up to number 1 when it was first released.
The Way Things Ought To Be, out of print
When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country, number 6,274 in sales.
Well, I suppose liberals read more than conservatives? Eh, maybe not. That's a rather broad stretch from the evidence. Popularity probably heads toward talent and/or luck. Then you've got the liberal media slant, but that doesn't explain sustained sales. Nope, yah gotta be good to do that.
We agree! Wow. Thing is, I put Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy into this category too, because I think both those guys are trying to be entertainers. They just aren't as good as Moore due to the right wing not having the sense of irony and over-the-top schtick the left wing has. In other words, they take themselves too seriously.
They really think they have Truth!
Now, to me, that is hilarious! But, we do agree on Moore. I think he is best of breed. Can't wait until it's out on video.
Just as perspective, a few Amazon searches brought up this:
Stupid White Men, number 34 in sales. It shot up to number 1 when it was first released.
The Way Things Ought To Be, out of print
When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country, number 6,274 in sales.
Well, I suppose liberals read more than conservatives? Eh, maybe not. That's a rather broad stretch from the evidence. Popularity probably heads toward talent and/or luck. Then you've got the liberal media slant, but that doesn't explain sustained sales. Nope, yah gotta be good to do that.
So is this thread just going to become a liberals vs. conservatives bash-fest? 
It's not worth keeping this open if that's the case. Let's try and add some real substance to our debates, please.
It's not worth keeping this open if that's the case. Let's try and add some real substance to our debates, please.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Apr 30 2003, 10:33 PM)
To answer the original question: no, the Oscar should not be revoked. Even AMPAS has more important things than that to worry about.
Yeah, like what Jennifer Lopez will wear to the next show...
Your argument is off-topic, there ARE other things in the world besides politics.
The original poster gave examples of awards that had been revoked for other reasons, your post had nothing to do with the discussion of whether "Bowling" was actually a documentary or whether it belongs in some other category.
I would say that when speeches are edited and intermixed, to create a false impression, that it goes beyond "spinning". I have no problem with documenting facts that support your view while ignoring opposing evidence. I do have problems with manufacturing evidence.
A little more food for thought:
In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore once again puts distortions and contradictions before the truth.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
Rules:
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. Definition
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore once again puts distortions and contradictions before the truth.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
Rules:
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. Definition
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
Let's not forget that the nominees for documentary feature are chosen by members of the Academy who are documentary filmmakers. I suspect that they are somewhat more familiar with the rules (and with what constitutes a documentary) than, say, someone with a web site and a grudge.
During the history of the Academy Awards, there have been many documentary features which have been found controversial, from Hearts and Minds to The Times of Harvey Milk. Some, like American Dream and The Panama Deception have received criticism from the right and others, like When We Were Kings and One Day in September, have received criticism from the left. I have never before seen it seriously suggested that an Award should be revoked. Then again, no other filmmaker has committed the most deadly, unforgiveable sin in the universe: failing to back George W Bush 100%.
I have seen this film. It is a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic and other subjects. The emphasis is on fact - indeed, fiction doesn't enter into it. And Bowling for Columbine could not remotely be considered a promotional film, a technical instructional film, or an unfiltered record of a performance - at least not as defined and understood by the members of the Academy. As I mentioned previously, the "outcry" over this movie is a petty, political vendetta. Period. If the supporters of the Bush administration feel that they need to worry this much about a low budget movie-maker whose worst crime is preaching to the choir, then they must have very little faith in the "mandate" of their peerless leader.
During the history of the Academy Awards, there have been many documentary features which have been found controversial, from Hearts and Minds to The Times of Harvey Milk. Some, like American Dream and The Panama Deception have received criticism from the right and others, like When We Were Kings and One Day in September, have received criticism from the left. I have never before seen it seriously suggested that an Award should be revoked. Then again, no other filmmaker has committed the most deadly, unforgiveable sin in the universe: failing to back George W Bush 100%.
I have seen this film. It is a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic and other subjects. The emphasis is on fact - indeed, fiction doesn't enter into it. And Bowling for Columbine could not remotely be considered a promotional film, a technical instructional film, or an unfiltered record of a performance - at least not as defined and understood by the members of the Academy. As I mentioned previously, the "outcry" over this movie is a petty, political vendetta. Period. If the supporters of the Bush administration feel that they need to worry this much about a low budget movie-maker whose worst crime is preaching to the choir, then they must have very little faith in the "mandate" of their peerless leader.
I want to know why George Bush keeps coming up in this thread. Nowhere in the opening post does Beladonna mention anything about Bush.
I am wondering if I were to start a post about wether or not you like mustard on your hamburger, somehow it would become political
I am wondering if I were to start a post about wether or not you like mustard on your hamburger, somehow it would become political
QUOTE(Sleeper @ May 1 2003, 06:05 PM)
I want to know why George Bush keeps coming up in this thread.
Call me crazy, but maybe it's because it's Michael Moore's attitudes toward George Bush that caused all this. Just an idea.
QUOTE(Platypus @ May 1 2003, 05:42 PM)
QUOTE(Sleeper @ May 1 2003, 06:05 PM)
I want to know why George Bush keeps coming up in this thread.
Call me crazy, but maybe it's because it's Michael Moore's attitudes toward George Bush that caused all this. Just an idea.
I thought beladonna was addressing the content of Moore's documentary. Actually you were the first to bring up the presidency/politics.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ May 1 2003, 07:04 PM)
I thought beladonna was addressing the content of Moore's documentary. Actually you were the first to bring up the presidency/politics.
Yeah, you're right. There's no connection between that content and politics. What was I thinking?
QUOTE(Sleeper @ May 1 2003, 06:05 PM)
I want to know why George Bush keeps coming up in this thread. Nowhere in the opening post does Beladonna mention anything about Bush.
I am wondering if I were to start a post about wether or not you like mustard on your hamburger, somehow it would become political.
I am wondering if I were to start a post about wether or not you like mustard on your hamburger, somehow it would become political.
Everything, Sleeper, is political.
Bowling for Columbine is very political. Michael Moore's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards was very, very political (and, along with dear little Gael Garcia Bernal's appearance, one of the few highlights of this year's ceremony). The reaction to Michael Moore's acceptance speech has been very, very, very political. The point is that, had Michael Moore simply thanked God and his parents for the Oscar, it's highly unlikely that there would be talk of "revoking" his award at all.
Granted, it is unfair to assume that any of this motivated beladonna's initiation of this thread, but it is certainly a factor in discussing the reaction to Moore receiving the award and the ludicrous notion of whether it should be revoked.
Those of you who have not seen Bowling for Columbine, should see it - especially if you wish to debate its merits here with a full deck. For those of you who missed the Oscar ceremony, here is the text of Moore's acceptance speech (he was joined on stage by the producers and directors of all five nominated films):
QUOTE
On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan (from Canada), I would like to thank the Academy for this award. I have invited the other documentary nominees on stage with me. They are here in solidarity because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction because we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where fictitious election results give us a fictitious president. We are now fighting a war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fictitious 'Orange Alerts,' we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up.
Maybe that is why George Bush keeps coming up on this thread.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
For what it's worth, Moore has suffered quite a backlash as a result:
- According to Daily Variety, the day after the Academy Awards, attendance at Bowling for Columbine in theaters around the country went up 110% and the following weekend, the box office gross was up 73%. It is now the longest-running commercial release in America, 30 weeks in a row and still thriving. The number of theaters showing the film since the Oscars has increased, and it has now bested the previous box office record for a documentary by nearly 300%.
- The following week, Moore's (non-fiction) book, Stupid White Men shot back to number one on the New York Times bestseller list. The book has now been on the list for over a year, with eight weeks at number one - this marked its fourth return to the top position, something that virtually never happens.
- In the week after the Oscars, Moore's web site was getting 10-20 million hits per day (even getting more hits than whitehouse.gov).
- In the two days following the Oscars, more people pre-ordered the video for Bowling for Columbine on amazon.com than the video for Best Picture winner, Chicago.
- Moore has since obtained funding for his next documentary, and has been offered a slot back on television to do an updated version of "The Awful Truth".
QUOTE
I want to counteract a message that is told to us all the time - that, if you take a chance to speak out politically, you will live to regret it. It will hurt you in some way, usually financially. You could lose your job. Others may not hire you. You will lose friends. And on and on and on.
Take the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure you've all heard by now that, because their lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas, their record sales have "plummeted" and country stations are boycotting their music. The truth is that their sales are NOT down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at #1 on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment Weekly, on the pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from #6 to #4. In the New York Times, Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to ANY of the Dixie Chicks' upcoming concerts but he couldn't because they were all sold out... Their song, "Travelin' Soldier" (a beautiful anti-war ballad) was the most requested song on the internet last week.
They have not been hurt at all - but that is not what the media would have you believe. Why is that? Because there is nothing more important now than to keep the voices of dissent - and those who would dare to ask a question - SILENT. And what better way than to try and take a few well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies so that the average Joe or Jane gets the message loud and clear: "Wow, if they would do that to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do to little ol' me?" In other words, shut the f--- up.
Take the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure you've all heard by now that, because their lead singer mentioned how she was ashamed that Bush was from her home state of Texas, their record sales have "plummeted" and country stations are boycotting their music. The truth is that their sales are NOT down. This week, after all the attacks, their album is still at #1 on the Billboard country charts and, according to Entertainment Weekly, on the pop charts during all the brouhaha, they ROSE from #6 to #4. In the New York Times, Frank Rich reports that he tried to find a ticket to ANY of the Dixie Chicks' upcoming concerts but he couldn't because they were all sold out... Their song, "Travelin' Soldier" (a beautiful anti-war ballad) was the most requested song on the internet last week.
They have not been hurt at all - but that is not what the media would have you believe. Why is that? Because there is nothing more important now than to keep the voices of dissent - and those who would dare to ask a question - SILENT. And what better way than to try and take a few well-known entertainers down with a pack of lies so that the average Joe or Jane gets the message loud and clear: "Wow, if they would do that to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, what would they do to little ol' me?" In other words, shut the f--- up.
I don't think Platypus was quite the first "to bring up the presidency/politics" in the context of Bowling for Columbine.
QUOTE
Let's not forget that the nominees for documentary feature are chosen by members of the Academy who are documentary filmmakers. I suspect that they are somewhat more familiar with the rules (and with what constitutes a documentary) than, say, someone with a web site and a grudge.
I agree, the people who nominated this film are very qualified to do so. The question is, when they submitted their nomination, did they realize Moore’s documentary was – in part - fiction?
QUOTE
I have seen this film. It is a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic and other subjects. The emphasis is on fact - indeed, fiction doesn't enter into it. And Bowling for Columbine could not remotely be considered a promotional film,
How do you know it’s non-fiction? You’ve been given examples where Moore edited footage to achieve an outcome different than its original intent. He is altering fact (creating fiction) to promote an agenda.
Having been given this information, how can you continue to state with such confidence that it is non-fiction?
QUOTE
Bowling for Columbine is very political.
A political non-fiction. Now that’s something to think about.
Absolutely, it's political. Bowling has an agenda. It seeks to promote Moore's point of view.
One thing this topic made clear to me ~ when we truly believe in a cause, whether it be political, moral, religious, etc., we will promote and defend it to the detriment of our own credibility. Moore did that. He believed in his agenda so strongly that he was willing to lie to promote his cause.
Will it hurt his reputation or marketable? Absolutely not. He will receive increased publicity and will profit from the controversy in the end.
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 3 2003, 08:34 AM)
He will receive increased publicity and will profit from the controversy in the end.
Thanks for helping.
beladonna,
I can speak with a little authority on this subject because I am a published nonfiction writer. My published book has to do with computers. The next one has to do with long-term unemployment.
I see the two books as being in separate categories. The first supports its views, conclusions, and opinions on undisputed facts. However, it does promote my views about the computer industry. For example, I have a chapter on vendor management. Gee, those vendor reps often spin, withhold, misrepresent, and outright lie about their products, just like politicians! Marketing rules both worlds.
The second book is heavy on my personal experiences while being unemployed. This one has a lot more slant to it, much more description of events and feelings, and all are filtered through my point of view. Does this make it fiction? Oh no, everything has really happened. Is it objective? Nope, and I don't claim it to be. I am trying to make it fair, however, and possibly useful along with the entertainment.
What Moore demonstrates in all his work is the view of life through his lenses. He combines selected fact and sequence to bring out his visions of what the world is. His work contains a great deal of emotion, as does my second book. I admire Moore's sense of irony; his deadpan, pimping interview style (think he might have invented that in his first film); and his ability to get into places he should not be.
This is why my first book will never become a best-seller on anyone's charts. It has a narrowly defined audience of trechworking techies. The second has potential, but only if I can pull it off nearly as artfully as Moore's work. The audience it is intended for contains anyone who has ever worked for a living wage, and especially anyone who has been caught up in the downsizing frenzy of corporations gone bad.
I don't think the issue here is whether Moore's work is intended to be objective or if objectivity is necessarily a good thing in a documentary. Of course Moore's work is slanted. He is a ticked off middle working class child of the great fall in the rust belt. He has issues.
Apparently they are resonating with the general public. This must be a scary thing for those holding power right now. What if Moore gains the economic status of some corporate giant? Might he start funding, oh say Democrats, in upcoming elections? Might he fund liberal think tanks? By gosh, we need to crush him like a bug!
But wait. We don't have crush funds. Dang it! Up to our ears in hock, corporate leaders falling like flies, money all tied up in T-Bills and Bonds. Meanwhile, the free-flowing bucks keep pouring into Moore's coffers.
And he isn't stupid.
QUOTE
Absolutely, it's political. Bowling has an agenda. It seeks to promote Moore's point of view.
I can speak with a little authority on this subject because I am a published nonfiction writer. My published book has to do with computers. The next one has to do with long-term unemployment.
I see the two books as being in separate categories. The first supports its views, conclusions, and opinions on undisputed facts. However, it does promote my views about the computer industry. For example, I have a chapter on vendor management. Gee, those vendor reps often spin, withhold, misrepresent, and outright lie about their products, just like politicians! Marketing rules both worlds.
The second book is heavy on my personal experiences while being unemployed. This one has a lot more slant to it, much more description of events and feelings, and all are filtered through my point of view. Does this make it fiction? Oh no, everything has really happened. Is it objective? Nope, and I don't claim it to be. I am trying to make it fair, however, and possibly useful along with the entertainment.
What Moore demonstrates in all his work is the view of life through his lenses. He combines selected fact and sequence to bring out his visions of what the world is. His work contains a great deal of emotion, as does my second book. I admire Moore's sense of irony; his deadpan, pimping interview style (think he might have invented that in his first film); and his ability to get into places he should not be.
This is why my first book will never become a best-seller on anyone's charts. It has a narrowly defined audience of trechworking techies. The second has potential, but only if I can pull it off nearly as artfully as Moore's work. The audience it is intended for contains anyone who has ever worked for a living wage, and especially anyone who has been caught up in the downsizing frenzy of corporations gone bad.
I don't think the issue here is whether Moore's work is intended to be objective or if objectivity is necessarily a good thing in a documentary. Of course Moore's work is slanted. He is a ticked off middle working class child of the great fall in the rust belt. He has issues.
Apparently they are resonating with the general public. This must be a scary thing for those holding power right now. What if Moore gains the economic status of some corporate giant? Might he start funding, oh say Democrats, in upcoming elections? Might he fund liberal think tanks? By gosh, we need to crush him like a bug!
But wait. We don't have crush funds. Dang it! Up to our ears in hock, corporate leaders falling like flies, money all tied up in T-Bills and Bonds. Meanwhile, the free-flowing bucks keep pouring into Moore's coffers.
And he isn't stupid.
QUOTE
In the movie, we see Moore at this bank. He fills out some papers and asks some questions of a female employee. We see her saying there are 500 firearms in the bank vault. Moore asks, as if everyone with a long-gun is probably a bank robber: "Do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?" He walks out of the bank with his long-gun held high above his head.
But, there's more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I'm a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he'd ever heard of."
Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.
In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.
But, there's more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I'm a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he'd ever heard of."
Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.
In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.
This thread isn't about liberal v. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. It's about truth, morals, accountability. It’s about a person who created an illusion to sell a product. It’s about a person who was rewarded for creating that illusion.
What message does that send? What values are we shrugging aside when we defend his actions?
It’s OK that Moore is anti-gun. It’s not OK that he uses magician tricks to push that agenda. Just tell us the truth. Don’t sell us illusions.
Believe it or not, there are more than a few intelligent people out there who agree wholeheartedly with Michael Moore's politics yet are rational enough to concur that his films, in particular Bowling for Columbine, are overrun with factual errors and deliberately false editing.
To end, I’ll quote from the critique listed below:
Is Bowling for Columbine a good documentary? I think it's a very good one: poignant, well made, and thought provoking. But how much better would it have been if he had been straight with us? I don't know, and given his disregard for the truth, maybe we never will.
http://www.geocities.com/evil_spoon/articl...forlockheed.htm
The Academy is not a historic society or an institution responsible for cultivating the morality of nations. They don't pretend or aspire to be. They review movies and reward good film makers.
The rules I cited from their website in a previous post encourage creativity in the making of documentaries. They appear to discourage showing events straight along the actual timeline. This is what Moore did in the case of the bank... entirely in accordance with Academy rules. Apparently, this was also in accordance with the rules of all the other organizations he received awards from.
When the Academy decides to become a cathedral, and they want to uphold truth, morals and accountability rather than good film making, perhaps there will be a legitimate complaint. Each documentary before Bowling, including fellow Oscar winners, had spin put on facts. Suddenly though, when Bowling -- or perhaps simply Michael Moore -- goes against the grain of mainstream opinion, people want the Oscar revoked.
If people want a documentary to be an unfiltered, unedited show across a straight timeline, take the issue to the Academy. And if people don't want any spin put on a documentary, perhaps they shouldn't look beyond home movies.
The rules I cited from their website in a previous post encourage creativity in the making of documentaries. They appear to discourage showing events straight along the actual timeline. This is what Moore did in the case of the bank... entirely in accordance with Academy rules. Apparently, this was also in accordance with the rules of all the other organizations he received awards from.
When the Academy decides to become a cathedral, and they want to uphold truth, morals and accountability rather than good film making, perhaps there will be a legitimate complaint. Each documentary before Bowling, including fellow Oscar winners, had spin put on facts. Suddenly though, when Bowling -- or perhaps simply Michael Moore -- goes against the grain of mainstream opinion, people want the Oscar revoked.
If people want a documentary to be an unfiltered, unedited show across a straight timeline, take the issue to the Academy. And if people don't want any spin put on a documentary, perhaps they shouldn't look beyond home movies.
Abs,
I find your by-line interesting. I'm going to alter the wording a bit. I respect your opinion Abs, so I hope my meddling with your by-line isn't taken personally because that isn't its intent. It's more a global observation.
Most people prefer to believe that peopleare just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a person acknowledges that another person is lying and corrupt, the person has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of deceitful people entails risks. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.
"Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
What is important is where we stand on the principle of the issue. In my opinion, Moore was dishonest and I believe rewarding dishonesty in such a high profile manner (like the Oscars) devalues morals and shows others they don't have to be accountable for their actions.
Then again, maybe I am over thinking this issue and should just go back outside and play in my flowers a while longer.
I find your by-line interesting. I'm going to alter the wording a bit. I respect your opinion Abs, so I hope my meddling with your by-line isn't taken personally because that isn't its intent. It's more a global observation.
Most people prefer to believe that peopleare just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a person acknowledges that another person is lying and corrupt, the person has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of deceitful people entails risks. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.
"Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
What is important is where we stand on the principle of the issue. In my opinion, Moore was dishonest and I believe rewarding dishonesty in such a high profile manner (like the Oscars) devalues morals and shows others they don't have to be accountable for their actions.
Then again, maybe I am over thinking this issue and should just go back outside and play in my flowers a while longer.
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 3 2003, 08:34 AM)
How do you know it’s non-fiction?
Because I've seen nothing yet to indicate otherwise.
QUOTE
You’ve been given examples where Moore edited footage to achieve an outcome different than its original intent. He is altering fact (creating fiction) to promote an agenda.
Yes. This is called editing, not fictionalizing. As with most documentaries, the film is edited to present a specific perspective. This "alteration of fact" does not create fiction, it creates a fairly typical documentary film. Have you ever seen a nature film in which we see a flower blossom in seconds due to stop-action photography? This is clearly an "alteration of fact", but it hardly renders the documentary a work of fiction.
QUOTE
Having been given this information, how can you continue to state with such confidence that it is non-fiction?
Because, again, I've yet to see anything which indicates otherwise. Moore clearly (and unabashedly) spins the facts. His documentary has an obvious bias from the outset. It is still a work of non-fiction. There were no statistics manufactured. There were data which were simply made up. There was no dubbing to put scripted words in peoples' mouths. Even the bank sequence which you cite above is guilty of nothing more than the compression of time (similar enough to that blooming flower). It doesn't alter the fact that the bank gives away free guns with new accounts. That was the point. What message does that send?
QUOTE
A political non-fiction. Now that’s something to think about.
Really? Apart from Fox News, most coverage of real political issues and events is non-fiction, however biased. Moore was not making The Manchurian Candidate or The Parallax View, he was making a documentary. And he did so - even according to the strictures of AMPAS.
May I ask, beladonna, were this a promotional film produced by the NRA advocating Second Amendment "rights" - with a similarly biased presentation of facts, would you have considered starting a thread to condemn the "dishonesty" of that film? Or is it just that you disagree with Moore's bias (in which case, debating the actual points which Moore raises might be a more profitable thread)?
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 3 2003, 08:20 PM)
Because I've seen nothing yet to indicate otherwise.
Check out the information on this site.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
I doubt it will change your opinion but it lists information relevant to this discussion. It breaks down the segment of Moore's film regarding Heston's speech, the Lockheed "missile" segment and a couple other items. I thought it was very interesting. I hope you do too.
As to your question about the NRA; I would like to think I am not so biased either way that I can't see and acknowledge dishonesty when it's exposed. IF the NRA ever films a documentary that is up for an Oscar, we can discuss it. Somehow, I doubt that will ever happen.
I've read "Truth About Bowling" already - and did find interesting, if not convincing.
For what it's worth, the 1999 film, One Day in September (which also received an Oscar for Best Feature Documentary), a film about the murder of eleven Olympic athletes at the Munich Olympic Games of 1972, received quite a lot of criticism for its Israeli bias, its glossing over of the politics behind the terrorist attack, it's sensationalistic and exploitative approach, and its unsubstantiated allegation that the German government arranged the hi-jacking of the Lebanon-Germany Lufthansa flight - yet there were no calls to revoke its Oscar.
The 1996 film, When We Were Kings ((which also received an Oscar for Best Feature Documentary) about the 1974 "Rumble in the Jungle" between Ali and Foreman was widely criticized for being somewhat patronizing, for ignoring the political background of the Mobutu regime, and for making a number of generalizations about Africa and native Africans - yet there were no calls to revoke this film's Oscar either.
Both films were accused of having a political agenda and were charged with stretching the bounds of documentary film-making. While I agreed with some of the criticisms and recognized that there were certain biases at work, I never considered either "fictionalized" accounts of the events concerned. Had anyone argued that these films should have ahd their awards revoked, I would have found those arguments as silly as I find the current ones regarding Bowling for Columbine.
Also for the record, while I am ordinarily a Michael Moore fan, I found Bowling a bit disappointing: too many premises and too few conclusions - and what conclusions there were, I found a bit tenuous. I also found the film a tad aimless, following a number of threads without satisfactorily exploring any of them. While I enjoyed many of its parts, I found the whole a bit unsatisfying. I have not, however (even having read most of the criticism), found it "fictitious".
While I accept your open-mindedness, I still feel that "dishonesty" is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder. I agree that it's unlikely the NRA will be producing any award-winning documentaries any time soon.
For what it's worth, the 1999 film, One Day in September (which also received an Oscar for Best Feature Documentary), a film about the murder of eleven Olympic athletes at the Munich Olympic Games of 1972, received quite a lot of criticism for its Israeli bias, its glossing over of the politics behind the terrorist attack, it's sensationalistic and exploitative approach, and its unsubstantiated allegation that the German government arranged the hi-jacking of the Lebanon-Germany Lufthansa flight - yet there were no calls to revoke its Oscar.
The 1996 film, When We Were Kings ((which also received an Oscar for Best Feature Documentary) about the 1974 "Rumble in the Jungle" between Ali and Foreman was widely criticized for being somewhat patronizing, for ignoring the political background of the Mobutu regime, and for making a number of generalizations about Africa and native Africans - yet there were no calls to revoke this film's Oscar either.
Both films were accused of having a political agenda and were charged with stretching the bounds of documentary film-making. While I agreed with some of the criticisms and recognized that there were certain biases at work, I never considered either "fictionalized" accounts of the events concerned. Had anyone argued that these films should have ahd their awards revoked, I would have found those arguments as silly as I find the current ones regarding Bowling for Columbine.
Also for the record, while I am ordinarily a Michael Moore fan, I found Bowling a bit disappointing: too many premises and too few conclusions - and what conclusions there were, I found a bit tenuous. I also found the film a tad aimless, following a number of threads without satisfactorily exploring any of them. While I enjoyed many of its parts, I found the whole a bit unsatisfying. I have not, however (even having read most of the criticism), found it "fictitious".
While I accept your open-mindedness, I still feel that "dishonesty" is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder. I agree that it's unlikely the NRA will be producing any award-winning documentaries any time soon.
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 4 2003, 04:21 AM)
I still feel that "dishonesty" is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder.
That statement Wertz, is probably the most profound in this discussion, in my opinion.
Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
beladonna,
Will you be willing to apply this principle in all instances? Is rewarding the Presidency also a devaluating situation? How about high royalties for a politically slanted book? Perhaps big bonuses and sweet retirement deals to CEOs fit this category?
Taken down to a more mundane level, how about landing that good job? Or selling that car? Courting that spouse, even raising that kid?
All involve a level of dishonesty, if we define that as putting a spin or slant on harsh realities. The only works of film that don't spin or slant are boring as all getout. Imagine a classroom film on the periodic table in chemistry. All fact, no spin, no slant, ho-hum. But now imagine that same film as presented by Steven Hawkins et al. Gee, talking about Big Bang theory, the first moments of creation, and all the things we don't understand, but might someday. There is such a documentary, and it is titled The Creation of The Universe.
Along these lines, working backward, few people raise kids with brutal honesty. Hey kid, your mama was real surprised that you came along--but then we got over it.
Honey, you should know that I eat crackers in bed and have a problem with toilet seats.
Well, sir, my greatest weakness is that I hate authority over me. I like to be a fully independent thinker concerned only with my own advancement and enrichment.
This car sucks. That's why I'm selling it to you, fool. Gimme your money and get outta here!
The Columbine massacre happened because we have developed a sick relationship with gun violence in this country. Our heros, using guns, kill lots of people. The more, the merrier.
--edited for clarity
QUOTE
What is important is where we stand on the principle of the issue. In my opinion, Moore was dishonest and I believe rewarding dishonesty in such a high profile manner (like the Oscars) devalues morals and shows others they don't have to be accountable for their actions.
Will you be willing to apply this principle in all instances? Is rewarding the Presidency also a devaluating situation? How about high royalties for a politically slanted book? Perhaps big bonuses and sweet retirement deals to CEOs fit this category?
Taken down to a more mundane level, how about landing that good job? Or selling that car? Courting that spouse, even raising that kid?
All involve a level of dishonesty, if we define that as putting a spin or slant on harsh realities. The only works of film that don't spin or slant are boring as all getout. Imagine a classroom film on the periodic table in chemistry. All fact, no spin, no slant, ho-hum. But now imagine that same film as presented by Steven Hawkins et al. Gee, talking about Big Bang theory, the first moments of creation, and all the things we don't understand, but might someday. There is such a documentary, and it is titled The Creation of The Universe.
Along these lines, working backward, few people raise kids with brutal honesty. Hey kid, your mama was real surprised that you came along--but then we got over it.
Honey, you should know that I eat crackers in bed and have a problem with toilet seats.
Well, sir, my greatest weakness is that I hate authority over me. I like to be a fully independent thinker concerned only with my own advancement and enrichment.
This car sucks. That's why I'm selling it to you, fool. Gimme your money and get outta here!
The Columbine massacre happened because we have developed a sick relationship with gun violence in this country. Our heros, using guns, kill lots of people. The more, the merrier.
--edited for clarity
I dont have alot of time, so lets see if I can actually write this somewhat concisely. I read one of the editorials attacking Bowling for Columbine awhile back and found it interesting, but hardly worth the reason to revoke an Oscar.
People keep mentioning that Moore is making a fiction of things, and I fail to see how someone can fictionalize things using true events. Are we denying that everything we physically see in Bowling for Columbine (sans the cartoon, obviously) is not real? The footage from Columbine High, was that fake? The footage of Heston, was that fake? Did Moore spend money to make a fake Heston and then interview him?Did Moore NOT visit the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton? When Moore states that we had a part in the assassination of Noreage, was he making that up? What exactly is being made up?
That being said, its unfortunate that Moore misrepresented Heston, but thats hardly fictionalizing. In truth, its really our own fault for interpreting Moores editing. Just because Moore shows Heston at one gunshow, then another, does that mean they never happened? It is the human mind that instantly makes the connection that they happened in sequence, when they infact did not. Thats not Moore deceiving us necessarily, but us deceiving ourselves...Hope that I made some sense..Since I probably wont have time to clarify.
People keep mentioning that Moore is making a fiction of things, and I fail to see how someone can fictionalize things using true events. Are we denying that everything we physically see in Bowling for Columbine (sans the cartoon, obviously) is not real? The footage from Columbine High, was that fake? The footage of Heston, was that fake? Did Moore spend money to make a fake Heston and then interview him?Did Moore NOT visit the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton? When Moore states that we had a part in the assassination of Noreage, was he making that up? What exactly is being made up?
That being said, its unfortunate that Moore misrepresented Heston, but thats hardly fictionalizing. In truth, its really our own fault for interpreting Moores editing. Just because Moore shows Heston at one gunshow, then another, does that mean they never happened? It is the human mind that instantly makes the connection that they happened in sequence, when they infact did not. Thats not Moore deceiving us necessarily, but us deceiving ourselves...Hope that I made some sense..Since I probably wont have time to clarify.
kimpossible,
I think you made perfect sense. I haven't seen Bowling yet (Colorado Springs and Woodland Park don't show such controversial things--have to wait for video), so I can't comment on the work directly, but I can comment on Moore's work in general because I have followed this guy for a time, each of us sharing a common attitude.
What is truth? What is reality? We all filter through our senses, our beliefs, our attitudes. Moore expresses what the little people think as these larger than life folks, like Heston (Moses! God!) posture and strut.
I like Charlton Heston. He's seems to be a nice guy. But I resent him for his larger than life position.
Same goes for corporate leaders, politicians, religious leaders, and anyone drawn in the cartoons as bigger than life.
Moore has a voice that harmonizes with mine. And so, give him the stupid Oscar. It does not reduce the, what is it, brotherly love? That I feel.
He's an ugly, fat white boy wearing a farmer's cap. Yep. We are one.
I think you made perfect sense. I haven't seen Bowling yet (Colorado Springs and Woodland Park don't show such controversial things--have to wait for video), so I can't comment on the work directly, but I can comment on Moore's work in general because I have followed this guy for a time, each of us sharing a common attitude.
What is truth? What is reality? We all filter through our senses, our beliefs, our attitudes. Moore expresses what the little people think as these larger than life folks, like Heston (Moses! God!) posture and strut.
I like Charlton Heston. He's seems to be a nice guy. But I resent him for his larger than life position.
Same goes for corporate leaders, politicians, religious leaders, and anyone drawn in the cartoons as bigger than life.
Moore has a voice that harmonizes with mine. And so, give him the stupid Oscar. It does not reduce the, what is it, brotherly love? That I feel.
He's an ugly, fat white boy wearing a farmer's cap. Yep. We are one.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ May 6 2003, 06:47 AM)
That being said, its unfortunate that Moore misrepresented Heston, but thats hardly fictionalizing. In truth, its really our own fault for interpreting Moores editing. Just because Moore shows Heston at one gunshow, then another, does that mean they never happened? It is the human mind that instantly makes the connection that they happened in sequence, when they infact did not. Thats not Moore deceiving us necessarily, but us deceiving ourselves...Hope that I made some sense..Since I probably wont have time to clarify.
Kim,
Listen to what you are saying.
Moore does not have to take responsibility for intentionally misleading his audience. The viewer has to take responsibility for being mislead.
Did I understand you correctly?
The definition of fiction:
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
The definition of feign:
1 a : to give a false appearance of : induce as a false impression <feign death> b : to assert as if true : PRETEND
2 archaic a : INVENT, IMAGINE b : to give fictional representation to
3 obsolete : DISGUISE, CONCEAL
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Abs,
Will you be willing to apply this principle in all instances?
Of course I am willing to apply this principle in all instances. Am I successful at it? Not always.
Is rewarding the Presidency also a devaluating situation?
The Supremes made a decision regarding Election 2000 and that decision allowed Bush to be President. If the SCOTUS had made the opposite decision, AL Gore would have been (s)elected President. Either way, the Presidency would have been awarded. Either way the position would have been devalued.
With all the arguments for or against the Supreme’s decision, there is one truth that remains; the law was complied with.
How about high royalties for a politically slanted book?
I have no problem with Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, or Ralph Nader (just to list three examples) making a profit from their politically slanted books. I have no problem with Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Dennis Miller, or George Carlin profiting by sharing their views on political issues or events via movies or cable network specials.
I DO have a problem with a person being rewarded for intentionally misrepresenting their work as fact, which, IMO, is what happened in Moore’s case.
Perhaps big bonuses and sweet retirement deals to CEOs fit this category?
There is nothing wrong with CEOs being awarded big bonuses and retirement deals. NOTHING. Since when did being successful equal dishonesty? Since when did being successful become something to be ashamed?
On the other hand, I have a HUGE problem with what happened at Enron, and American Airlines (just to name two well known/current examples) who were caught and have to pay the price for their dishonesty.
You listed four examples where people might lie or not fully disclose something about themselves. I wasn’t sure what your point was in listing them. I understand fully the degrees of deceit. White lies told so that you won’t hurt a person’s feelings. White lies told so that you appear to be a better person. I doubt anyone is above telling a white lie.
There is a huge difference in telling your intended spouse, “Honey, I like to eat cookies in bed” and Honey I like to eat cookies in bed (with your sister.)”
One point of information, near the edge of the topic:
While I disagree with Abs using the 2000 election as a parallel, your rebuttal is even more of a departure. You are wrong to say that "either way" the presidency would have been "awarded" or that the position would have been "devalued". There is no guarantee that had the Supremes made the opposite decision and respected states' rights, that Al Gore would have been elected. The only guarantee is that all of the votes would finally have been counted. Only the decision that the Supremes did make "devalued" and "awarded" the presidency - not to mention devaluing their own prior rulings on equal justice cases - and the entrire tradition of jurisprudence in the United States of America. AMPAS giving Moore an Oscar did no such thing regarding their tradition.
For what it's worth, the law was not complied with following the 2000 election. That's why I think this is a bad comparison. The AMPAS rules allow for "dealing creatively" with facts - and, therefore, Bowling for Columbine was a legitimate choice. Our federal laws do not allow for "dealing creatively" with state election legislature - and, therefore, Bush is not a legitimate choice.
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 6 2003, 01:20 PM)
Is rewarding the Presidency also a devaluating situation?
The Supremes made a decision regarding Election 2000 and that decision allowed Bush to be President. If the SCOTUS had made the opposite decision, Al Gore would have been (s)elected President. Either way, the Presidency would have been awarded. Either way the position would have been devalued.
With all the arguments for or against the Supreme’s decision, there is one truth that remains; the law was complied with.
The Supremes made a decision regarding Election 2000 and that decision allowed Bush to be President. If the SCOTUS had made the opposite decision, Al Gore would have been (s)elected President. Either way, the Presidency would have been awarded. Either way the position would have been devalued.
With all the arguments for or against the Supreme’s decision, there is one truth that remains; the law was complied with.
While I disagree with Abs using the 2000 election as a parallel, your rebuttal is even more of a departure. You are wrong to say that "either way" the presidency would have been "awarded" or that the position would have been "devalued". There is no guarantee that had the Supremes made the opposite decision and respected states' rights, that Al Gore would have been elected. The only guarantee is that all of the votes would finally have been counted. Only the decision that the Supremes did make "devalued" and "awarded" the presidency - not to mention devaluing their own prior rulings on equal justice cases - and the entrire tradition of jurisprudence in the United States of America. AMPAS giving Moore an Oscar did no such thing regarding their tradition.
For what it's worth, the law was not complied with following the 2000 election. That's why I think this is a bad comparison. The AMPAS rules allow for "dealing creatively" with facts - and, therefore, Bowling for Columbine was a legitimate choice. Our federal laws do not allow for "dealing creatively" with state election legislature - and, therefore, Bush is not a legitimate choice.
My apologies. My response was to AM, not Abs.
Wertz,
Point taken. :-)
Wertz,
Point taken. :-)
beladonna,
Thanks! I just went through a situation where the arguments revolved around degrees of deceit. The details of that aren't important to this thread, but it's nice to have someone else recognize the degrees.
I'll go along that the Bowling documentary is probably playing with the facts to make certain points, so maybe we can consider whether the points have validity? That's what I was getting at.
It has come out recently that airline executives awarded themselves fat bonuses and feathered their own retirement nests while the rank and file were taking cuts in everything, and the airlines themselves were heading into bankruptcy. I find that to be unethical behavior. This is self-reward for failure. It comes mighty close to thievery, especially when you consider the billions in taxpayer dollars that were handed over to these airlines.
So that's why the reference to CEOs.
QUOTE
You listed four examples where people might lie or not fully disclose something about themselves. I wasn’t sure what your point was in listing them. I understand fully the degrees of deceit.
Thanks! I just went through a situation where the arguments revolved around degrees of deceit. The details of that aren't important to this thread, but it's nice to have someone else recognize the degrees.
I'll go along that the Bowling documentary is probably playing with the facts to make certain points, so maybe we can consider whether the points have validity? That's what I was getting at.
It has come out recently that airline executives awarded themselves fat bonuses and feathered their own retirement nests while the rank and file were taking cuts in everything, and the airlines themselves were heading into bankruptcy. I find that to be unethical behavior. This is self-reward for failure. It comes mighty close to thievery, especially when you consider the billions in taxpayer dollars that were handed over to these airlines.
So that's why the reference to CEOs.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 6 2003, 05:43 PM)
I'll go along that the Bowling documentary is probably playing with the facts to make certain points, so maybe we can consider whether the points have validity? That's what I was getting at.
It has come out recently that airline executives awarded themselves fat bonuses and feathered their own retirement nests while the rank and file were taking cuts in everything, and the airlines themselves were heading into bankruptcy. I find that to be unethical behavior. This is self-reward for failure. It comes mighty close to thievery, especially when you consider the billions in taxpayer dollars that were handed over to these airlines.
So that's why the reference to CEOs.
AM,
I appreciate that you can see where I am coming from with regards to "playng with facts." I'd enjoy discussing the subjects covered in the documentary.
I mentioned American Airlines in my post specifically because they are the most recent to be exposed for the scoundrels they are. I believe that is the airline you are referring to. That behavior is unacceptable in my opinion.
I enjoy Michael Moore. He probably deserved the Oscar. And I thought it was gutsy of him to make his statement at the ceremony, even though it was like someone with flatulence in the church choir.
But because of his sensationalism (which makes it entertaining), I would not take my kid to one of these movies. I have to spend time daily with my daughter explaining that this or that is not real, that is a special effect, no, he wasn't really there singing with his dad Hank Williams, Sr., ad infinitum. It gets tiresome.
The hardest thing about entertainment and news media these days is figuring out for myself first what has been enhanced, hyperbolized, etc.
"Just the facts, ma'am" is less welcome than ever. Most (but not all of us) just want to be entertained.
I like Charleton Heston. And I too resent the 'aura' that he assumes to have from time to time. I remember the "out of my cold, dead hand" NRA speech. Now he has Alzheimers, a terrible disease. Will they bury him with that musket? I don't care, as long as they don't let him walk around with it in his current state.
Elspeth
But because of his sensationalism (which makes it entertaining), I would not take my kid to one of these movies. I have to spend time daily with my daughter explaining that this or that is not real, that is a special effect, no, he wasn't really there singing with his dad Hank Williams, Sr., ad infinitum. It gets tiresome.
The hardest thing about entertainment and news media these days is figuring out for myself first what has been enhanced, hyperbolized, etc.
"Just the facts, ma'am" is less welcome than ever. Most (but not all of us) just want to be entertained.
I like Charleton Heston. And I too resent the 'aura' that he assumes to have from time to time. I remember the "out of my cold, dead hand" NRA speech. Now he has Alzheimers, a terrible disease. Will they bury him with that musket? I don't care, as long as they don't let him walk around with it in his current state.
Elspeth
QUOTE(beladonna @ May 6 2003, 12:20 PM)
The definition of fiction:
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
The definition of feign:
1 a : to give a false appearance of : induce as a false impression <feign death> b : to assert as if true : PRETEND
2 archaic a : INVENT, IMAGINE b : to give fictional representation to
3 obsolete : DISGUISE, CONCEAL
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
I am well aware of the definition of fiction, and feign.
But Moore did NOT "invent" anything, as you say. Did Heston say those things? Or did he not? Until it comes out that the words were scripted and Heston did not say that, then how is it fiction? Did K-Mart really get rid of hand gun amunition, or not? Again, until its noted that it never happened, then its not fiction.
As Wertz pointed out (I think it was Wertz) its called "editing".
QUOTE(kimpossible @ May 13 2003, 06:06 AM)
But Moore did NOT "invent" anything, as you say. Did Heston say those things? Or did he not? Until it comes out that the words were scripted and Heston did not say that, then how is it fiction? Did K-Mart really get rid of hand gun amunition, or not? Again, until its noted that it never happened, then its not fiction.
As Wertz pointed out (I think it was Wertz) its called "editing".
Ok, If I have you read off a list of words and record you saying them such as: with, I, gun, killed, friend, my, a.
Then edit the tape to have them spoken in the order: I killed my friend with a gun.
Would that be fact or fiction?
Gee, that's a really, really hard question, Sleeper.
If you are suggesting that this is what Moore did in Bowling for Columbine please say so. I'll alert his lawyers at once.
In fact, what Moore did is more along the lines of showing archive footage of a murder scene then cutting to a taped confession made by the killer three years later: "I killed my friend with a gun." What some seem to be suggesting here is that, unless Moore made a movie which ran for three years (so we'd be fully aware of how much time elapsed between the crime and the confession), what he is doing is fictionalizing. As an argument, it is patently absurd.
If you are suggesting that this is what Moore did in Bowling for Columbine please say so. I'll alert his lawyers at once.
In fact, what Moore did is more along the lines of showing archive footage of a murder scene then cutting to a taped confession made by the killer three years later: "I killed my friend with a gun." What some seem to be suggesting here is that, unless Moore made a movie which ran for three years (so we'd be fully aware of how much time elapsed between the crime and the confession), what he is doing is fictionalizing. As an argument, it is patently absurd.
Um Wertz I was referring to the Heston NRA speeches that were edited in Bowling.. 
I guess maybe i should have stated that.
But seeing that I used kim's quote from her earlier post I guess it would imply that.
In her post she argued "did Heston actually say those words", infact he did. And like Heston said those words if I edit any stream of words or phrases to make it appear somebody said something in the manner they did not is a fallacy.
I guess maybe i should have stated that.
But seeing that I used kim's quote from her earlier post I guess it would imply that.
In her post she argued "did Heston actually say those words", infact he did. And like Heston said those words if I edit any stream of words or phrases to make it appear somebody said something in the manner they did not is a fallacy.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.